It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

page: 25
5
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorex
A lot of people like to point to natural selection as a means of creation, when the only product of natural selection is destruction.


Evolution by natural selection can actually be viewed as a process of trial and error, an iterative 'design' algorithm. There's a reason why such approaches are now used in all sorts of fields to problem-solve and design.

It's not actually destructive really. For example, we have 1000 organisms which range in their ability to survive in an environment. The ones who are most adapted produce more offspring than those who aren't. Thus the next generation favours the more adapted. All organisms die anyway, just some will have produced more offspring. Not really destructive, just selective.


Robot B: Nobody, it just came to be by complete and utter accident....

And how much more complex are we than or greatest creation, yet people believe this all came together by fluke???!!!!!


You actually started by talking about natural selection, and then overlooked it to claim that evolution is a 'fluke' and 'accident'. If you mean it was undirected by the hand of an interdimensional biochemist, it appears that way. If you mean that evolution was a purely random process then, no, it isn't. Natural selection is non-random.


If all the worlds greatest minds got together and succeed in finally creating synthetic life, evolutionist would say "AHAA! SEE! Life can evolve from nothing!" completely missing the fact that what they are pointing at is simply a product of intelligence, and a copy at that.


No, they wouldn't. That would be rather silly. It would show exactly what it shows, we can create synthetic life-forms in the lab.

If, however, we are able to find pathways to replicating RNA lifeforms from the basic organic building blocks, by simply modelling environments that would have been available 4 billion years ago. Then we might have just found an abiogenetic pathway.

But that wouldn't show that life can evolve from nothing. I don't think many actually think that, it tends to be creationists.


You want evidence of creation, pinch yourself, then take a look out your window.


That could be the best evidence so far in this thread. Well done.



sty

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   
i am not on any side rgarding this issue. I believe that the universe is billion years old , however I do not think we are able at this point to explain the existence of the DNA. This is something Darwin did not know . I study now the subject of "evolutive computing" - and the more I study the more I realise that you cannot have DNA from random athoms . the human DNA alone has about 3 000 000 000 letters . I guess that at this point we should be onest - creationists or evolutionists - and say "we do not know". Another issue is the NDE (Near death experiences) that are studied and validated by atheists or non-atheist doctors - yes, they are real .Just Google "near death" and you can find quite some scientifical studies . My conclusion is that the Universe was created and programmed to evolve . This is really in the middle - creationists and evolutionists can now have peace !
( i know they will not haha)



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Evolution by natural selection can actually be viewed as a process of trial and error, an iterative 'design' algorithm. There's a reason why such approaches are now used in all sorts of fields to problem-solve and design.

It's not actually destructive really. For example, we have 1000 organisms which range in their ability to survive in an environment. The ones who are most adapted produce more offspring than those who aren't. Thus the next generation favours the more adapted. All organisms die anyway, just some will have produced more offspring. Not really destructive, just selective.


Exactly, but the actuall "selection" didn't make the current organisms more adaptable (or create anything), it only destoyed the ones that weren't. Natural selection doesn't select something for improvement, it selects something for destruction.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorex
Exactly, but the actuall "selection" didn't make the current organisms more adaptable (or create anything), it only destoyed the ones that weren't. Natural selection doesn't select something for improvement, it selects something for destruction.


Not really, it was just that some were able to reproduce more.

All organisms die. Evolution shows that those who are most adapted will produce more offspring. So, in the next generation, these more adapted organisms will be a higher proportion of the population. After 100 generations, they will probably be the vast majority.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sty
I realise that you cannot have DNA from random athoms . the human DNA alone has about 3 000 000 000 letters . I guess that at this point we should be onest - creationists or evolutionists - and say "we do not know".


I think I have to agree that DNA from random atoms would be rather unlikely, indeed, very very improbable. But no-one studying this stuff in science actually thinks that is what happened.


Another issue is the NDE (Near death experiences) that are studied and validated by atheists or non-atheist doctors - yes, they are real .Just Google "near death" and you can find quite some scientifical studies . My conclusion is that the Universe was created and programmed to evolve . This is really in the middle - creationists and evolutionists can now have peace !
( i know they will not haha)


I think they are real in that they do exist. But just in the minds of the participants. The brain is pretty good at creating stuff under stress.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by melatonin]


sty

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
NDE is not created by the brain. I did think about it too , however I would not be able to explain how Near Death people would give details they should not know . Watch this video:




posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sty
NDE is not created by the brain. I did think about it too , however I would not be able to explain how Near Death people would give details they should not know . Watch this video:


If you find that convincing, then fair enough. I don't.

For example, he claims that because she was under water for 19 minutes or whatever then she would have no brain function. That's a claim he can't support, it's an assertion. Later he claims that because she was comatose, she had no 'brain wave activity'. This is untrue, comatose patients can easily have EEG activity, just abnormal. However, it can be used to measure depth of coma. Even isoelectric EEG doesn't mean there is no brain activity - EEG has pretty poor spatial resolution measuring only what is observed at the scalp. Then we have lots of apparent anecdotal evidence about angels, music etc.

Don't convince me, sorry.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
there are so many posts about creationist debunking evolution - but they never actually back up their beliefs with evidence.
I am curious - wat evidence besides the bible actually exists regarding creationism?


If you don't have a alternate theory to Evolution. Then all that is left is creationism. If evolution is false. Then creationism is true. Do you have one? If evolution is falsified then everything was created. By the way. There is no scientific proof that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That's pure speculation.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47

Originally posted by mamasita
there are so many posts about creationist debunking evolution - but they never actually back up their beliefs with evidence.
I am curious - wat evidence besides the bible actually exists regarding creationism?


If you don't have a alternate theory to Evolution. Then all that is left is creationism. If evolution is false. Then creationism is true. Do you have one? If evolution is falsified then everything was created. By the way. There is no scientific proof that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That's pure speculation.


no thats pure speculation that the alternate theory is creationism. Even some creationists believe in evolution at some sort. Of course there are plenty of theories such as aliens for instance - but then they would have to start from somewhere - maybe they could create life - and that theory is still more believable than some "magical entity" just makin a world full of people animals and life that all interconnect with eachother. And by the way there is absolutely no proof we were created by a "god".
That was just a waste of time replyin to that post!



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mamasita
 


There is much science that has been done and is being done that supports ID. ID="the universe and life was started by an intelligent agent". If you aren't aware of this, It is because you don't want to know about it. It is easily found on the Internet. However the mainstream educational system is doing all it can to suppress, ID. This suppression has
been exposed much in some mediate outlets and the interned. See this site of a soon to be released movie on the subject. www.expelledthemovie.com...
It doesn't matter who created Life. If it was created by martians, then it is a form of creationism. As to your statement about everyone believing some sort of evolution. That is because the term (evolution) is ambiguous.
Usually just means, "change over time". Change over time, doesn't mean life is getting more complex, or ever has. Doesn't mean life all has a common ancestor. Both those last to ideas aren't supported by any
scientific data. They are purely wishful thinking on the part of those who
aren't comfortable with a Creator!



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Sorry if this has been covered but I'm still trying to catch up on the thread...

I have a question... Evolutionists take their theory (which to me is a best guess considering the interpretations of the data available at a particular time) back to a Big Bang. Can you go back further than that? If there was a Big Bang, what blew up? Where did it come from? Who/what put it there? You still have to explain what blew up and how it got there to make me believe that evolution is at all worthy of even the slightest plausibility. WHere did the matter that blew up come from?

No disrespect intended at all... There are things in the Bible that I can't explain either.... If there was Adam, Eve, and Cain (Abel has already been killed by Cain) and Cain is sent away to another land and a mark is put on him so no one will kill him. Tell me.... who would there have been on the earth other than his mom and dad that could kill him???? When he went to Nod he took a wife. Where did she come from???? I've never been able to get past this one either.

So yea, I have questions that I can't answer on both sides of this coin....


Tony



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by leachbed67
I have a question... Evolutionists take their theory (which to me is a best guess considering the interpretations of the data available at a particular time) back to a Big Bang. Can you go back further than that? If there was a Big Bang, what blew up? Where did it come from? Who/what put it there? You still have to explain what blew up and how it got there to make me believe that evolution is at all worthy of even the slightest plausibility. WHere did the matter that blew up come from?


Hi leachy,

At this point, I think the answer is no, at least for now. Classical physics breaks down at planck epoch (i.e. produces a singularity), so we are reliant on superstring 'theories', and other more exotic physics. However, there are some proposals that could be tested examining such issues.

cyclic models

The big-bang isn't really an explosion. More an expansion. According to brane cosmology, this was due to collisions between branes. That's just one line of research.

So, the answer at this point is 'don't know'.

This isn't evolution in the sense of evolutionary biology, though. More a case of cosmic evolution. If you want to shove a magic-man in the gap, that's cool. Just a 'god of the gaps' argument really.

But try saying it: 'We don't know'

It's actually liberating. Rather than feeling we need to supply any old made-up answer, I can accept a level of ignorance until evidence comes along.


So yea, I have questions that I can't answer on both sides of this coin....


Well, I'll leave the bible stuff to someone who is, firstly, more knowledgeable; and secondly, actually cares (no disrespect to you, of course).

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Another obvious problem for the request for an, (scientific theory for creationism) is this. Man's present idea, (definition) of science is diametrically opposed to finding ultimate truth. It that truth includes a
creator. The present scientific establishment has a pre-determined answer, (no creator), that they are trying to find the solution to.
When you asking creationist for a scientific theory, under those conditions, your asking the impossible. Your asking this. "Give us an
equation that shows us there is a creator, that doesn't involve the creator."
Basically, they are saying. "tell us how we can be the creator, independently from the creator, then will believe you!"



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


No, no, no a thousand times no. Not even close. Science NEVER makes its mind up, as there is no definitive "proof" in the scientific method. Only mathematics has proof.

If an experiment was conducted that demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of God, and that experiment could be repeated ad infinitum by anyone who cared enough to perform it, and the same results were always given, then a massive portion of the scientific community would support the idea that God exists.

Science is the struggle to learn, to find the truth. It seems more like you have made your mind up without testing, as there is no evidence for god, yet you vehemently insist he exists, and will refute anyone or any finding that says otherwise, again without any evidence of your own.

How are you striving to find the ultimate truth? You read a book and are sticking with it. How have you found anything out that no-one has found before?



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by mamasita
 


There is much science that has been done and is being done that supports ID. ID="the universe and life was started by an intelligent agent". If you aren't aware of this, It is because you don't want to know about it. It is easily found on the Internet. However the mainstream educational system is doing all it can to suppress, ID. This suppression has
been exposed much in some mediate outlets and the interned. See this site of a soon to be released movie on the subject. www.expelledthemovie.com...
It doesn't matter who created Life. If it was created by martians, then it is a form of creationism. As to your statement about everyone believing some sort of evolution. That is because the term (evolution) is ambiguous.
Usually just means, "change over time". Change over time, doesn't mean life is getting more complex, or ever has. Doesn't mean life all has a common ancestor. Both those last to ideas aren't supported by any
scientific data. They are purely wishful thinking on the part of those who
aren't comfortable with a Creator!


Do you even know what your talking about? your off track and not making a point.
Does it upset you that education now integrates evolution into our learning curriculum? Have you ever thought why that might be? Even after all the animosity that must of followed because of blind faith believers as your self would've have rebelled. Its being taught in schools because there is so much evidence unearthed to prove it.
Don't tell me what I know or what I want to know when you don't even have the faintest idea about evolution.
And no, i'm not comfortable with a creator - cause it just doesnt make sense! I gave up believing in god about the same time I stopped believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny - cause they've all got about the same magical myth to them.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mamasita
 



The educational system in America is incompetent. So, claiming that the evolutionary theory is superior to creationism, simply because your educational system supports it, is laughable.

“Even after all the animosity that must of followed because of blind faith believers as your self would've have rebelled.”

I really have no idea what this fragmented-run on sentence is asking or stating. Is this the product of your fine educational system???

The evolutionary theory is being taught in the schools, mostly to control people. If people aren’t following a “G*d”, they are following the government 100%. Believing in the evolutionary theory is a way for people to free themselves from the obligation of living a life of virtue. In affect, living a lie and serving the government.

Your logic seems flawed . . . do you even understand evolution? Or do you support it simply because it is anti-religious . . .

Not understanding something is not a reason to chastise it or claim that it doesn’t make sense. When did you stop believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny? Did your parents have to tell you they weren’t real? Did your teachers have to tell you?

I’m sorry if my post seems caustic. But I’m quite tired of people ranting uncritically.


[edit on 3/10/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by melatonin
 


That and the fact that there is evidence for a World-wide flood in the sedimentary layer which runs through the whole earth.
And the living species we have today which were supposed to be extinct.
That caelacanth and the horshoe crab which is almost exactly like a trilobite.
Also, that there are accurate descriptions of dinosaurs by cave dwellers here



[edit on 30-12-2007 by Clearskies]


Without turning this into an argument, there are those who would say that there are also cavepaintings of ufo's, Myan texts of bearded white men, plato's discription of Atlantis, and Egyptian heroglyphs of helecopters and other vehicles.

Science has proven an Ige age which in turn melted, thus resulting in a layer of "flood" No one is saying that Evolutionism has all the answers but at very least it has some.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Ogre14tScience has proven an Ige age which in turn melted, thus resulting in a layer of "flood" No one is saying that Evolutionism has all the answers but at very least it has some.

I suppose all that slowly melting ice. Violently buried all the vegetation
and fauna. Which never had a chance to decompose. But rather under the pressure of millions of tons of over turned strata; all that bio matter turned into coal and oil.
Evo certainly doesn't have any answers; to those who allow more then a glimmer of light, into their soul.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mamasita
 


here pal why dont you look up some kent honind vids on google he explains a lot. if u watch his debates and you will find what you you dont want to belve



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BasGo
 


kent hovind?
the man has some of the least scientific and most outright false arguments in the world of young earth creationism (and that's saying a lot).

www.kent-hovind.com...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join